It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Daylight disc...let's get it on. Part 1

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I'm using Windows 2k, and when opening properties, all I get is this.



But When I open the jpeg in notepad, after some cleanup, there it is.



Now if I only knew what all this meant.




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
jritzmann, you're the image expert, but looks to me like pic 3 could easily be a model suspended from one of the tree branches. As mentioned, lines such as fishing line can easily be scrubbed out nowadays, so nothing too hard there.


Yeah, that had crossed my mind as well. There looks to be some tree limbs (w/trunks not visible, or possibly from the trunks we can see) from roughly twenty to thirty feet away that this very small model could have been suspended from.

Peace


[edit on 14-4-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Hey-
Ok, excellent so far you guys.

Here's what we got...
1)Cug discovers the camera information is not what was stated. Hmmm.

2)While I agree with the source of the pictures, thats my site I hosted them on, and I work in the prop and set/CGI industry, they were just put there for you guys to see. BUT, thats a good call anyway, you had no idea...but one thing is to NEVER accept website pictures period, make them send them to you on a mem card or camera.

3)Photoshop is used to get the images off the camera. I did use CS to do auto levels and auto color, just for better quality. But could they have been adjusted/altered before? Dont know, so far, it is what it is. You aint got much to go on.


Again, if these were coming from a source, that'd be immediately suspect. ALWAYS ask for the camera itself or the unfettered memory chip. STILL check for such alterations in the advanced settings of the files. They can be altered and put back thru the camera to the chip, and you'd never know it.

Despite what people are saying about the lighting, and "looking wrong" and basing something on that, there's nothing wrong with the lighting, and it's 100% consistent. (I know, I ruining the little game of the mystery)

Typically you'd go to the actual shooting location and do test shots, at the same time of day, with hopefully the same weather conditions. For the sake of the demo tho, I'll tell ya flatly the lighting is correct on the object, so lets drop that point.

Mythatsabigprobe, mentions short focal length...sweet.

So, so far we've been fed a wrong camera, and an inconsistency in the day and time, refuting *concretely* that there's a deliberate attempt to be misleading from saying they were shot in succession.

Cug tho did a really good thing. He overlapped the 1 and 2 photos.
Do you note the relative angle? Check this...



Uh huh. The center line of both images based on the angle of the disc are going to meet up. Short focal length. If the disc was on a tether as Doc Love said...then these lines would represent a tether point.

Is there *any* sign at all that the tether is seen in these images? Xabora did his test for manipulation, and saw no alterations. How good is that test? Does anyone see any evidence for tether in the photos? What if the tether was removed by an image editor? Wouldnt his test show that?

Part 2 coming later today.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
jritzmann, you're the image expert, but looks to me like pic 3 could easily be a model suspended from one of the tree branches. As mentioned, lines such as fishing line can easily be scrubbed out nowadays, so nothing too hard there.

As an aside, the method of pics 1 and 2 may be what Meier used for his infamous pics. I think you're somewhat familiar with that...no?


I'm SO friggin glad ya mentioned that name Gaz. Yeah...just a little familiar.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Is there *any* sign at all that the tether is seen in these images? Xabora did his test for manipulation, and saw no alterations. How good is that test? Does anyone see any evidence for tether in the photos? What if the tether was removed by an image editor? Wouldn't his test show that?


A fishing line is going to be hard to see at 15-25 feet even with the naked eye. But anyway if you take an image at the cameras highest resolution then edit out the teather, the clone tool would work, but if you want the best results the pencil tool set on a one pixel brush size changing shades from time to time will cover it up. Then when you scale the image down to 400x300 the interpolation algorithms in your imaging software will effectually hide any sign of tampering.

Also the little fib about the camera could also deceive the person investigating the image.. they would have a preconceived idea that the camera resolution was better than it really was and assume that a clue would be easier to spot. To tell the truth the only way to be 100% sure about the authenticity of any image is to have had taken the image yourself. Every step you take away from that point leaves more things to question.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Yep Cug, and questions are all you get with this stuff. Puzzle on top of puzzle. Hell for most cases, the idea of the fib of the date would be enough for me to drop it. But for sake of this example, we're taking out some of those points.

Higher res images, are what you always ask for if theyre digital pics (which are gonna be alot more prevailent these days. It's all going to get harder and harder to spot.

One thing to note as far as our example, is that the houses are burred a percentage more then the trees. The trees a percentage more than the disc. That puts the disc close. In estimation based on blur separation, the disc could be less then 3 feet away. The tether would show. The question is can it be found.

I know it's hard to do this and effectively show the exam in full res and on the same monitor online, but it should still come through pretty well....and maybe give some folks an idea on where to look in this particular instance.

If these were negatives, you'd not have a date for them, or time...so in alot of ways digital has it's advantages.

What I wanna get across in all this is how deceptive it can all be, despite what you see. That despite what you see and surmise, even if you think it's fake, can be severely in error..nevermind what people think is real.

You dont just have to say "it's a fake because of this one thing"...you have to bury it. Point after point. Pound it. Unless you have visual proof, some people will never accept it. It's not because theyre stupid, it's just that they need to see it. Nobody wanted to see the CGI of the Mexico City Daylight footage I talked about here. When I showed them visiually with the explanation, then it's clicked for them, and they "see" it clearly.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Jeff, can you explain the difference between say a 3.2 mpxl and 5mpxl digital cammera. Pixels are the same size right? So would a picture taken with a 5 mpxl camera be larger in size and have better resolution than a 3.2? Thanks.

Great thread by the way, I've always wondered about this stuff.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Jeff, can you explain the difference between say a 3.2 mpxl and 5mpxl digital cammera. Pixels are the same size right? So would a picture taken with a 5 mpxl camera be larger in size and have better resolution than a 3.2? Thanks.

Great thread by the way, I've always wondered about this stuff.


The more resolution you get the better the image, but that's only true if the most modern CCD is as good as the one before it, but at higher resolution.

As you get up the megapixel scale, then the larger the format required to get a larger change in output size. A 1.3 Mpxl is gonna be around 1280 X 960, where a 4.9 would be 2560 X 1920 Thats twice the resolution for comparison

Print size is 300dpi, but most inkjet printers wont get that kind of quality. You'd have to do a photo processing on the image file.

A high quality CCD is gonna be crucial too, megapixels aint all the story.

EDIT: "The key difference between a digital camera and a film-based camera is that the digital camera has no film. Instead, it has a sensor that converts light into electrical charges.
The image sensor employed by most digital cameras is a charge coupled device (CCD). Some low-end cameras use complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology. While CMOS sensors will almost certainly improve and become more popular in the future, they probably won't replace CCD sensors in higher-end digital cameras. Throughout the rest of this article, we will mostly focus on CCD. For the purpose of understanding how a digital camera works, you can think of them as nearly identical devices. Most of what you learn will also apply to CMOS cameras.

The CCD is a collection of tiny light-sensitive diodes, which convert photons (light) into electrons (electrical charge). These diodes are called photosites. In a nutshell, each photosite is sensitive to light -- the brighter the light that hits a single photosite, the greater the electrical charge that will accumulate at that site."

Good explanation of CDD...just wanted to include that.


[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
One thing to note as far as our example, is that the houses are burred a percentage more then the trees. The trees a percentage more than the disc. That puts the disc close. In estimation based on blur separation, the disc could be less then 3 feet away. The tether would show. The question is can it be found.


Well if the Exif info was right, and I figured the focal length conversion correctly I still say the object has to be at least 10 feet away. The hyperfocal distance (The spot with the best focus) is still at 15-20ft and taking guess looking at the image the object seems to be in that area. (But you would know better
)

People should also remember even if an image can be proven 100% not altered by photoshop or the like, there is still a TON of stuff you can do to fake an image.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
"Well if the Exif info was right, and I figured the focal length conversion correctly I still say the object has to be at least 10 feet away. The hyperfocal distance (The spot with the best focus) is still at 15-20ft and taking guess looking at the image the object seems to be in that area."

So lemme ask ya this, because I have it figured a little differently. From that 10 ft distance, estimate the size of the object.

"People should also remember even if an image can be proven 100% not altered by photoshop or the like, there is still a TON of stuff you can do to fake an image. "

A ton is an understatement...like I said this is but one senario. The same can be done on video, motion picture film, and still photos. But usually just as in this case with the focus on a possible tether, there are tells in every senario, that give you a possible path to go on.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Locking per request of the author...more discussion to be continued upon his posting of part 2.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join